digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at arstechnica.com

Jammie Thomas challenges 'monstrous' $1.92M P2P verdict

arstechnica.com — Jammie Thomas-Rasset has asked the court to overturn or reduce the $1.92 million judgment against her for sharing music files online. As an alternative, how about a third trial?

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 8, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

86 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chrismwood, on 07/07/2009, -5/+30She's obviously guilty and will never get off scot free, but the damages are plainly excessive. It's extortion, especially considering the artists she "stole" from won't see a dime of it. Actually, the RIAA probably won't either, she's poor as ***** now. Even a reduced judgement to statutory damages ($18k) will take her years to pay off.

    The moral of the story here? Don't use Kazaa, retards. That is the moral, right?
  • Boracho, on 07/07/2009, -1/+21Obligatory "***** the RIAA"
  • inactive, on 07/08/2009, -1/+16Even if I had the money I wouldn't pay it. ***** these greedy bastards they really have nothing better to do with their time.
  • Chirp08, on 07/08/2009, -2/+13If you already can't afford to pay it what the ***** does it matter if the fine gets larger? She might as well fight as long as she possibly and keep being a pain in the ass to them.
  • ryan6608, on 07/07/2009, -2/+13Even $750 per song is excessive. If each song only averaged 3MB that's still over 50GB uploaded plus the assumption that 1 download = 1 lost sale @ 99 cents per song. IMO I bet the real detriment to the music industry was < $100 per song.

    Really though, there's little difference between making 10 songs available for download or making 100000 songs available for download. The damage done to the music industry is going to be limited by the upload speed of the person violating copyright law, not the number of songs they have in their music collection.
  • ProjectGSX, on 07/08/2009, -3/+11Not true, it sets a legal precedence. You can then use it to make it easier to get monetary awards from OTHER people, who may in fact be able to pay.
  • Snoogs, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6It's not like taking this back to court could result in a higher charge than before?.... oh, wait...
  • enthreeoh, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9You're an idiot, at this point anything more is the same. Hell, cut that judgement in half and it's still the same to them in the end. They won't get anything near what they're asking. She has nothing more to lose so she may as well try to get it to be something manageable.
  • synth3tik, on 07/08/2009, -2/+7Simply put, the RIAA has not the consumer, artist, or the industry at heart. It's all about the ***** money.

    They've already killed music.
  • Izzmo, on 07/07/2009, -2/+7Of that $80,000 per album, the lawyers will take $50,000, plain and simple.. greedy bastards. Why do you think they try so hard to get the maximum?
  • twiztidsinz, on 07/08/2009, -4/+8So apparently rights have no place in a civil trial?


    I could maybe understand if the CORPORATION would get out of GOVERNMENT, but since they won't... then they should play by the GOVERNMENTS rules.
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6The RIAA offered to settle for $5000. She turned it down. The RIAA isn't interested in the money in this case, they are interested in the precedent that it sets.
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -4/+8Trolling is not pointing out unpopular reality. Trolling is making a series of arguments that are all strawmen. Classic examples of straw man arguments litter the first page of your history.
  • inactive, on 07/08/2009, -1/+5Yes it's true, punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez civil trial were thrown out by the Supreme Court because they were in excess of a certain ratio, I believe it was 4x (or something). So instead of the 10 Billion they had to pay in 1990, it's now 550million as of today.

    It's funny how the law works differently when you don't have a ***** load of money and lawyers.
  • inactive, on 07/08/2009, -4/+8If you go bankrupt in a civil case they can't do ***** to you.
  • mwalker05, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3i like how "monstrous" is in quotes, as if its being used sarcastically
  • baddog993, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Kind of what she tried to do, and lost. Now she is neck deep in bad stuff.
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4Well when you destroyed evidence and perjured yourself at two separate civil trials there is a danger that the the judge will refer her for criminal prosecution.

    So this could change from a civil matter to a criminal one, really quick.

    That would make the precedent that Jammie Thomas is setting even worse for file copiers. It would mean there is actual weight behind the threat of jail in the letter the RIAA sends file copiers.
  • Midtowner, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5Not when the judgment is issued by a District Court.

    Civ Pro 101.
  • dalittle, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Actually, it has also inspired a political party, The Pirate Party, and a lot of people are now actively avoiding music made by companies belonging to the RIAA http://riaaradar.com
  • STPZ, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Her name was Jammie Thomas
  • Midtowner, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4>It's funny how the law works differently when you don't have a ***** load of money and lawyers.

    You act like this has already been to the Supreme Court. I don't think this lawprof would have taken the case unless he planned on seeing it all the way through. He's pretty much stuck having to do an appeal at this point, so we'll get some sort of precedent out of this. The District Court did what District Courts are supposed to do -- uphold the law unless it's blatantly unconstitutional. Here, it's a close case.
  • bdbr, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2People have been posting that for years. *I* have been posting that for years. Its not like the RIAA just started being *****. Still, it was clear to me that a boycott wasn't going to accomplish much because the general population didn't know (or care) that they were such *****...until this trial. Now its front-page news. Maybe now people will get a clue about these major labels.
  • BREZZZ, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4It might as well be a billion. The average person is never going to be able to pay a fine like that. I have a feeling after a few months this whole thing will be settled out of court, under the table. She gives them a few thousand for their trouble and promises to never tell anyone and they forgive her. That is what they are after- the press. Every one of you ***** your pants when you saw the amount, and now can't shut up about it. It's probably discouraged a few people from downloading. Mission Accomplished.
  • ykol20, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2I don't know why you were getting downvoted. That's a very good point.

    All of this 'making available' stuff is complete bs. Isn't the whole idea behind 'american freedom' the fact that you are not responsible for other people's actions?
  • Midtowner, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Interestingly enough, there's some federal common law which is marginally (and I do mean marginally) on point which holds that punitive damages (which these ain't) in a high enough amount (I think in excess of 10x in that case) are unconstitutionally excessive under the 14th Amendment.

    Here, I think we could have an interesting case for the Appellate court, maybe eventually the SCOTUS as to whether statutory damages which are far in excess of the actual damages can be unconstitutionally excessive.
  • baddog993, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3 My ex girlfriend embezzled money from a company the amount was about half a million. This was in California, she moved to Oregon and they still garnish her wages and yes she did file for bankruptcy and changed jobs. This stuff follows you for the rest of your life dont delude yourself into thinking it doesnt. The reason I left her? She did the same nasty thing to me. Ugh. She was a mentally unstable person who needed some mental doctor to look after her.
  • dstz, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3"IMO I bet the real detriment to the music industry was < $100 per song"

    Even the idea that this woman could have destroyed 100$ proper in sales for every song flies in the face of some file sharing behavioral and economic studies.

    For example:
    "Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote"
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html
  • mdude85, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Just the sole fact that someone can get sued for millions of dollars for distributing material where it can never be proven how many people actually acquired it, is proof that copyright law needs to be amended for the electronic age.

    But at the same time, it's kinda crazy that the jury of her peers decided this amount of damages was necessary.
  • tgc1, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Well there's always bankruptcy and then giving them a one finger solute.
  • ProjectGSX, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3FTA:

    Jammie Thomas-Rasset has asked the federal judge overseeing her file-sharing lawsuit to toss the $1.92 million damage award, reduce it to the statutory minimum of $18,000, or grant her a new trial.

    So now she is ASKING for a $18,000 penalty? What was her option to settle this thing originally, $5,000? Talk about taking a loss.

    Besides, isnt she just going to file for bankruptcy?
  • Midtowner, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1I merely listed manners by which trial courts could find against juries. Here, clearly, the proper motion would have been for a judgment not withstanding the verdict. In such a motion, the court grants the 'loser' relief despite the jury's findings. One of the grounds for a JNOV is that the jury did not apply the correct law, and even two juries can get the law wrong.

    The standard of review on appeal depends on what the challenged grounds are. If the amount is challenged on the basis (and it will be because that's where Exxon went) that the statutory damages offend substantive due process, then you're challenging the verdict as a matter of law, that gets de novo review, and then yes, THEN you go to rational basis if rational basis is deemed to be the correct standard -- and the correct standard at that point is going to be where the battle is (as it always is).

    If there's 'no way in hell,' I ask you then to distinguish Exxon from this case. I realize we're talking about statutory vs. punitive damages, but the two sorts of damages are means to the same end -- to discourage the harmful act. While they're distinguishable, there's definitely a meaty enough question there to kill lots of trees.


    Rational basis isn't even an appellate standard of review here, there are three: abuse of discretion, that the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence and de novo. Rational basis comes in when you're actually applying the law and figuring what sort of right you're dealing with.

    While Exxon was explicitly about applying substantive due process to punitive awards in maritime cases, keep in mind that copyright violation and maritime laws are both within the federal common law, so principles applied are going to
  • locojones, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Hey we have a legal eagle here. Do tell, why didn't the plaintiffs have standing to sue? I'm sure all of the lawyers involved, the Judge, and her clerks, would like to know what they apparently missed.
  • tgc1, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Or you could just leave the country. ***** 'em.
  • locojones, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1Actually they can. A civil judgment on a wrong that the bankruptcy court classifies as willful and malicious is not dischargable in bankruptcy. So all that you'd do is ruin your credit and still have a 2 million dollar judgment. There's no escape.
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3The RIAA offered to settle again for $5000 just last week. Jammie Thomas turned that offer down. That means the bankruptcy issue is over forever. She can no longer dispatch this debt in bankruptcy court.
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2She will not get a third trial...
  • B1665r, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2These are not punitive damages, they are statutory damages. So your first paragraph is out straight away.

    I doubt this case will ever make it to the SCOTUS on damage limits, because this the the result of a SECOND jury trial. No judge anywhere in the american legal system likes to overturn the verdicts of a jury, and even less so a second jury.
  • locojones, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1A judgment as a matter of law would require the judge to say that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could rule for nobody other than the defendant. Given that not one, but two juries have rules against her on the same evidence makes that motion not only futile, but ethically frivolous and subject to sanctions.

    And an appellate court reviewing the statutory damages provision does not do so de novo, but rather under a rational basis standard of review because due process provides only minimal protections to purely economic rights. Given the rational relation between deterrence of copyright infringement, the protection of the incentive to produce, and the statutory damages regime (which was carefully contemplated and crafted by Congress), there is no way in hell it will be deemed unconstitutional.
  • baddog993, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1 I believe they changed the law on that. I think they no longer throw out the civil case anymore. I could be wrong just something I read about on here or reddit.
  • Corrosionx, on 09/05/2009, -0/+1Simply because the RIAA couldn't show an actual, tangible loss.

    The thing is, you never get to win in government courts. At best you are losing your time, at worst you could lose your liberty.
  • lynx44, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3I don't think she should be responsible for what others did with the music she uploaded. If someone else illegally downloaded it off her and they want compensation for it, they should find that person and prosecute them. She shouldn't be responsible for their actions in my opinion. If they don't know who downloaded it off of her, then they have no proof and that's all just conjecture - it shouldn't be allowed. Innocent until proven guilty, and so far I'm not aware of a case that actually can provide real proof of what downloads actually occurred.
  • Travelsonic, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3"Of that $80,000 per album, the lawyers will take $80,000, plain and simple"

    Fix'd


    The money from these lawsuits have never, and probably will never go to the artists like they claim it will.
  • bdbr, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1They haven't killed music. Its just hiding elsewhere.
  • bdbr, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Because MediaSentry got a file from her computer. I've always thought that to be rather meaningless since they were authorized to do this..i.e. there are no known unauthorized downloads. Apparently the courts don't see it that way.
  • bdbr, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1Surely they know they're not going to get paid much (if any) of this penalty. This trial probably wasn't about a one-time profit anyway. They want to scare people out of downloading, and scare people out of refusing settlements when they get caught.
  • tgc1, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Ooops they did it again.

    ***** the RIAA!
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2"Just the sole fact that someone can get sued for millions of dollars for distributing material where it can never be proven how many people actually acquired it, is proof that copyright law needs to be amended for the electronic age."

    First, I don't think she was sued for millions of dollars. The jury decides damages from a range, and I expect the RIAA was as surprised as she was at the amount.

    Second, your point about copyright law is remarkably silly. You are essentially arguing that because it is now easier to copy, we should make it so the penalties for copyright are lower. That makes no sense. That's like arguing that, say, a 70 MPH speed limit was fine back in the days when few cars could go that fast, but now that most cars can do that, we need to raise the limit.
  • MScrip, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2>> "they are interested in the precedent that it sets."

    What precedent? Everyone knows that if you get caught sharing music... you will be fined. This is nothing new.

    It doesn't matter if the fine is the normal $3,000 or close to $2,000,000 in Jammie's case. People will always share music.

    What's funny is... since this trial has been going on for the last 4 years... more people have just been paying the 99 cents for a song... instead of using Kazaa or Limewire. It's a different time. I remember everyone using Limewire back in the day. But 99 cents is worth it to not have to deal with Limewire's *****. iTunes and Amazon are quite popular nowadays.

    But, there will always be file sharing of some sort. Nothing can stop file sharing. So, are these lawsuits really scaring anyone?
  • locojones, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Show me a statement where the plaintiffs ever said the money was to go to the artists? It doesn't make any logical sense that it would, considering the plaintiffs are the copyright owners and therefore the ones damages by the infringing conduct.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.